CITIZENSHIP

Allegiance of Defendant

Citizenship - Allegiance of Defendant - Onus of proof on prosecution - Place of birth - Whether presumption of nationality

Ooi Hoe Koi v Public Prosecutor; Ooi Wan Yui v Public Prosecutor [1966] 2 MLJ 183, Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur

The defendants, Ooi Hoe Koi and Ooi Wan Yui, were born in Malaya to Chinese parents. They were educated in Malaya and had never been outside the country. In 1965, they applied for Malaysian citizenship. Their applications were rejected by the Registrar of Citizens on the ground that they were not of good character. The defendants appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their appeals. They then appealed to the Federal Court.

The main issue in the case was whether the defendants owed allegiance to Malaya. The prosecution argued that they did not, because they were born to Chinese parents and had never been outside Malaya. The defendants argued that they did, because they had been born in Malaya and had always lived there.

The Federal Court held that the defendants owed allegiance to Malaya. The court said that the onus of proof was on the prosecution to show that the defendants did not owe allegiance to Malaya. The prosecution had failed to discharge this onus. The court also said that the place of birth is a strong indication of allegiance. The court said that the defendants' Chinese ancestry was not relevant, because they had been born and raised in Malaya.

The defendants' appeals were dismissed.



Declaration for

Citizenship - Declaration for - False statement in - No set form of

Public Prosecutor v Ramasami [1970] 2 MLJ 71, High Court, Alor Star

The defendant, Ramasami, applied for Malaysian citizenship. In his application, he stated that he had never been convicted of any offence. However, it later transpired that he had been convicted of an offence in Singapore. The prosecution charged him with making a false statement in his application for citizenship.

The defendant argued that the prosecution had not proved that he had made a false statement. He said that the question on the application form was whether he had ever been convicted of an offence, and he had answered this question honestly. He said that the fact that he had been convicted of an offence in Singapore was not relevant, because Singapore was not part of Malaysia at the time of his conviction.

The prosecution argued that the defendant had made a false statement by stating that he had never been convicted of any offence. They said that the question on the application form was whether he had ever been convicted of an offence in any country, and he had answered this question dishonestly.

The High Court held that the prosecution had proved that the defendant had made a false statement. The court said that the question on the application form was whether the defendant had ever been convicted of any offence, and he had answered this question dishonestly. The court said that it was irrelevant that the offence had been committed in Singapore, because Singapore was a part of Malaysia at the time of the conviction.

The defendant was convicted of making a false statement in his application for citizenship.





Citizenship - Declaration for - Good character - False declaration - Proof

Public Prosecutor v Munusamy [1967] 1 MLJ 238, High Court, Ipoh

The defendant, Munusamy, applied for Malaysian citizenship. In his application, he stated that he was of good character. However, it later transpired that he had been convicted of an offence in India. The prosecution charged him with making a false statement in his application for citizenship.

The defendant argued that the prosecution had not proved that he was not of good character. He said that the question on the application form was whether he was of good character, and he had answered this question honestly. He said that the fact that he had been convicted of an offence in India was not relevant, because India was not part of Malaysia at the time of his conviction.

The prosecution argued that the defendant was not of good character by virtue of his conviction in India. They said that the question on the application form was whether the defendant was of good character, and he had answered this question dishonestly.

The High Court held that the prosecution had proved that the defendant was not of good character. The court said that the question on the application form was whether the defendant was of good character, and he had answered this question dishonestly. The court said that it was irrelevant that the offence had been committed in India, because India was a part of Malaysia at the time of the conviction.

The defendant was convicted of making a false statement in his application for citizenship